137 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

*You have created too many powerful enemies*
*You don't have enough allies to counter the threat*
*You fail in your goals!*

They also die as a result.

[Eveangaline]

I'd say there's multiple ways to interpret that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

(Yes, it's quite possible to interpret that sentence as not prohibiting Mage rulers.  But I'm sticking to the White Chanty interpretation for the purposes of this post)

It is an oddly meaningless statement.  Mages are men, are they not?

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

I think the line"SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM" is miss understood. In a proper government the ones in charge are in service to the people, not the people to the government. It just mean magic should not be used to control people not mages can't be part of the government.

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

Obviously not everyone will agree, but it'd be interesting to bring up in-game: that a political leader should by definition already be serving the people, and as such magic itself is not being used to rule over everyone.

Why should that definition be used when the DA setting is not a culturally western setting in which people believe this?

This is political anachronism stew, similar to the people who go into the games with a player viewpoint of 'all men were created equal' when, well, in the DA setting all men were not created equal. Not in fundamental respects that were a cornerstone of western liberalism, ie that the overall differences between people are marginal rather than significant.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

Ethnocentric, you mean?

It's a cultural attitude, not dependent on ethnicity.

I suppose the question is whether or not that's a viewpoint held in Thedas. If people believe that rulers gain their position due to superior blood or because of divine right, it's unlikely governments believe it's the duty of rulers to 'serve the people.'

The Theron(sp?) bloodline is literally superior to that of other humans because they have 'dragon blood' or something, which suggests rulership = breeding in Thedas.

There's also the principle of 'the individual serves the collective', which is a strong underpinning of the Qun. There's the principle IRL that people should serve and dedicate themselves to the divine because the divine is awesome and loving like that, which is very, very, very abstractly a piece of the Chantry depending on who you talk to.There's the principle that the people must pursue past knowledge and glory, which is the guiding idea of the Dalish. Etc.

Western primacy of the individual and that leaders are subordinate to their will is not the guiding idea of most of Thedas.

[fchopin]

My philosophy in playing games is very simple.

Everything in the game is not real unless it is explained.

If the writers call some person the maker he or she is just a person like everyone else unless the writers show me otherwise. If the story tellers wish me to see something different then show me.
If you do not show then it means nothing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

(Yes, it's quite possible to interpret that sentence as not prohibiting Mage rulers.  But I'm sticking to the White Chanty interpretation for the purposes of this post)

It is an oddly meaningless statement.  Mages are men, are they not?

If you're refering to 'magic exists to serve man', then mages aren't mentioned.

If you find abstract phrases meaningless, then that's simply your problem.

[Lotion Soronarr]

VampireSoap wrote...

I mean, she's not far off. The idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being is absurb in and of itself. If an adult believes in Santa Cause, everyone loses their mind! But if an adult believes in an invisible being that can listen to billions of people whispering to him in prayers simultaneously and give "profound" responses, everyone just keeps reading their newspaper and figures the guy is just a Catholic. I think the developers are right to include this kind of ignorance in the game, makes it...more realistic.

Vampire, keep your hate for religions and vitirol out of the forums.
Flame wars are not nice.
Religious flame wars are ever less so.

Consider yourself warned.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maria Caliban wrote...

1. The chant of light does not describe him as omnipotent. It clearly shows he's not omniscient as when he creates his first children, he then sits around and waits to see what they'll do, and is surprised that they can only copy his works. Likewise, as they talk about his being absent, that would mean he's not omnipresent.

2. A god doesn't need to be omnipresent nor omniscient to be prayed to. The ancient roman and norse gods were neither, but that didn't stop their respective societies from praying to them or preforming rituals to please them.

It's useless to story to debate about Omnipotence. Logic cannot handle it. that doesn't make omnipotence illogical - it jsut means logic as a tool is insufficient for it. Omnipotence is - by definition - above logic and not constrained by it.

Yes, you cna be omniscent and not know what Bob did at the same time. You can create a stone too heavy for you to lift and be able to lift it at the same time. What? How ? Because omnipotence! It scoffs at your puny mind.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Also, as to the issues of magicwith political power. It should be obvious.

POLITICS IS DIRTY BUISNESS.
People in general hate politicians because they are corrupt and dirty.

So someone who can get possesed by demons, who has great personal power and cna mind-control peopel - lets give him great political power to boot.
Surely a great idea!

[Wulfram]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

There are always exceptions to the rule but regardless The Warden almost single handly saved Ferelden from a Blight I don't think they care about his/her magic.

It'd still be a useful pretext for people who are opposed to the Warden's rule anyway, like those rebellious nobles.  And that Templar lady who wants Anders.

And my Mage Warden would care, being quite religious.

[Dermain]

azarhal wrote...
The Chantry wasn't in it up its neck in Awakening when a mage Warden was appointed Arl of Aramanthine (even a standard Warden should have been a cause of unrest going by the lore) or in DA2 when the Templars named (blood) mage Hawke Viscount of Kirkwall. It's also not just about the Chantry, Connor couldn't not inherit Redcliff the moment his magical power showed up, it's part of the feudal law. It's part of all none-Tevinter/none-Dalish countries social cultures. In fact, it's not the Chantry would should be annoyed, it's all the peasants and nobles who should act like BioWare said people are supposed to act toward mages: affraid.

BioWare just has a bad case of gameplay vs lore/story segregation. I personally don't care, but sometimes you wonder why they bother with making a complex lore to ignore some of the finer points in the end.

It could be argued (without metagaming) that part of the reason why some of the nobles of Amaranthine wanted to kill a mage warden commander is because the commander is a mage. Since this occurs regardless of the commander's class it's easy to metagame this away as having nothing to do with the commander being a mage.

[DarthLaxian]

Wulfram wrote...

Will this little theological issue come up?  Previously our PCs tended to get something of a pass on this - Warden becomes Arl, Sebastian happily says that Hawke should be Viscount, and they do so in the Templar ending - but it seems like it should be a pretty big deal, and the inquisitor seems like they'll be wielding a pretty significant amount of authority.

Will Templars and Chantry types bring it up?  If the PC supports the Templars and the Chantry, will their apparent hypocrisy be mentioned?  Could the PC themselves express doubt about their actions?  I know at least one of my wardens would have freaked about the Arl thing, if they hadn't already died.

(Yes, it's quite possible to interpret that sentence as not prohibiting Mage rulers.  But I'm sticking to the White Chanty interpretation for the purposes of this post)

hey...

i hope they bring it up - so that i can shove it back down (sorry, but i have just about had it with the "white" chantry (they are as white as the night IMHO - using all tricks in the book to keep their power, from playing the religion-card (meaning they have political influence), to having a - large! - standing army (the templars!), to assassinations and spy work (the seekers!) to force people into cooperation (even their own people!)) and their bull-crap propaganda (!)...i am so glad the templars finally gave them the finger! (although i don't like their reasons, as i am for mage freedom)

that's why i am glad that we are not part of the chantry.

and yes, i interpret that very differently then they do - magic does never rule over men (except if blood-magic (mind-control!) is used on someone or if someone is possessed!), even if mages rule (because a mage is still a person - and more then just the magic he/she has!)

greetings LAX

[Wulfram]

DarthLaxian wrote...

hey...

i hope they bring it up - so that i can shove it back down

Yes, that's very much the idea.  But hopefully not the only way of dealing with things.

[Urazz]

I always saw that line in the Chantry as to mean that you cannot abuse your magic to rule over men. The best example of this is using blood magic to mind control people.

[Lord Gremlin]

Magic exists to serve man. Emperor exist to serve his nation. So, there you have it.

And any logical flaws can be solved via fireball. If not, add more fireballs until issue is solved.

[Heidenreich]

Also you have to remember a few things (When it comes to Awakening)

1. The Warden just SAVED THE WORLD. Being a mage in power probably ranks lower on the scale of caring at that point.

2. It's highly likely that they didn't TELL the people of the arling that The Warden IS a mage. It probably came up

"Uh, people aren't going to take me being a mage in power very well" - warden

"Well then we simply won't tell them" - Alistair/Anora

"Uh isnt.. i mean, the chantry isn't going to like it..." - warden

"Sod the chantry. We need your help to deal with this bull****. If they throw a fit afterwards, we'll deal with it then." - Anora/Alistair


Seems logical. Ferelden is in a bad way and the Warden is being asked to help fix it. If the chantry protests later, The Warden can simply hand off control to another non-mage Warden.


Just like with Mage Hawke showing off his/her powers in front of every noble in the city -- They just saved their lives, do you honestly think they are going to turn you over to the Templars? "Idk what you're talking about. I didn't see any magic" - random noble

Modifié par Heidenreich, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[Wulfram]

People are going to know the Warden is a Mage. I mean, they probably zapped Loghain in front of the Landsmeet, it's not a secret. And yeah, Hawke has a lot of goodwill for saving people's lives, but in Act 3 their being a mage isn't a secret. And while a lot of people are going to be prepared to look past this, a lot of people aren't too.

And I'm not at all saying that Mages shouldn't be able to rule - though given the circumstances I don't think Mage Viscount Hawke makes much sense - I'm saying it's something that should come up.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:38 .

[DarthLaxian]

Wulfram wrote...

DarthLaxian wrote...

hey...

i hope they bring it up - so that i can shove it back down

Yes, that's very much the idea.  But hopefully not the only way of dealing with things.

hey - i didn't mean being "petty" about it (i like solving things with diplomacy, without having to resort to violence (but i am no pacifist - IMHO sometimes violence is necessary, thus i don't shun violence completely...that would take a lot of options away from a person (even in RL there are some things that are better taken to the physical level - like hitting someone who you thought a friend when he slept with your girlfriend or something...could never just accept something like that!))

but i will not just bend over backwards, when the chantry says so (i wont burn it down if i don't have to either of course)

greetings LAX

[Sifr]

My interpretation was always "Magic is meant to be used for the benefit of mankind, never to oppress them", in the same vein as Malcolm Hawke's mantra of "Magic will serve what is best in me, not what is most base".

It's got nothing to do with Mages being allowed power, which seems to have been just a reactionary interpretation to the Archons of the Tevinter Imperium. The words at their most basic, were simply a warning that it's a tool that should be used to help people and the power should never be abused.

It'd be nice for the Inquisitor to be able to voice such opinions in the game, particularly if a Mage.

Modifié par Sifr1449, 12 septembre 2013 - 02:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you're refering to 'magic exists to serve man', then mages aren't mentioned.

Does magic do anything on its own without mages making the decisions?

Unless they define magic to include spirits - then it arguably makes sense.

If you find abstract phrases meaningless, then that's simply your problem.

It seems to me to be a vague platitude.  It's used as if it justifies the chantry oversight of mages, but I don't think it actually justifies that.

[leaguer of one]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you're refering to 'magic exists to serve man', then mages aren't mentioned.

Does magic do anything on its own without mages making the decisions?

Unless they define magic to include spirits - then it arguably makes sense.

If you find abstract phrases meaningless, then that's simply your problem.

It seems to me to be a vague platitude.  It's used as if it justifies the chantry oversight of mages, but I don't think it actually justifies that.

1. But magic does include spirits, and the fade, and demons.
2. Exactly, especially when there is more then one way to interprete the statement.

[MisterJB]

Sifr1449 wrote...

My interpretation was always "Magic is meant to be used for the benefit of mankind, never to oppress them", in the same vein as Malcolm Hawke's mantra of "Magic will serve what is best in me, not what is most base".

It's got nothing to do with Mages being allowed power, which seems to have been just a reactionary interpretation to the Archons of the Tevinter Imperium. The words at their most basic, were simply a warning that it's a tool that should be used to help people and the power should never be abused.

It'd be nice for the Inquisitor to be able to voice such opinions in the game, particularly if a Mage.

Assuming that Andraste herself spoke that, word for word, then her wording doesn't support this interpreation. She said "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him" rather than "Magic exists to serve man, and never to opress him". Therefore, Andraste opposed magical ruler in general which makes sense in context, considering that she was struggling against an empire of magic users.

Of course, this begs the question "Magic is not an intelligent being so, how can it rule over anyone?" Which brings us to what I believe is the closest interpretation of what Andraste meant "Magic must be used to help others and leaders should be chosen for their merit rather than their magical ability."

Of course, in theory, this doesn't prevent a mage from having political power so long as s/he earned that power through intelligence or cunning rather than simply because s/he had the good fortune of being born with the ability to kill people with his/her mind. But, in practice, magic is an advantage and any mage that wishes to have political power will not refrain from taking advantage of his/her magic to gain it hence why the White Chantry just keeps mages from power on principle.
It is a fact that all magocracies in Thedas; such as Tevinter or the Dalish; choose their leaders based on magic rather than other characteristics that would be more useful for a good leader.

[Sifr]

MisterJB wrote...

Sifr1449 wrote...

My interpretation was always "Magic is meant to be used for the benefit of mankind, never to oppress them", in the same vein as Malcolm Hawke's mantra of "Magic will serve what is best in me, not what is most base".

It's got nothing to do with Mages being allowed power, which seems to have been just a reactionary interpretation to the Archons of the Tevinter Imperium. The words at their most basic, were simply a warning that it's a tool that should be used to help people and the power should never be abused.

It'd be nice for the Inquisitor to be able to voice such opinions in the game, particularly if a Mage.

Assuming that Andraste herself spoke that, word for word, then her wording doesn't support this interpreation. She said "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him" rather than "Magic exists to serve man, and never to opress him". Therefore, Andraste opposed magical ruler in general which makes sense in context, considering that she was struggling against an empire of magic users.

You are assuming of course, that her wording wasn't changed or altered at some point by the Chantry.

Considering that the Canticle of Shartan and the Canticle of Maferath was completely removed from the Chant of Light and were hear that their are other Dissonant Verses, the Chantry is not opposed to rewriting the rules to better serve their agenda.

If I might point to the Assassin's Creed series for a moment, while the ending of the third game was terrible, it did raise a good point that it's very easy for the warning "Heed these words and you will be saved" can be morphed into "Heed these words or perish as a heretic", by those who desire to twist the truth to gain power over others.

Given the sheer level of dogma the Chantry throw out, who knows what Andraste herself really said?

Modifié par Sifr1449, 12 septembre 2013 - 06:12 .

[azarhal]

Sifr1449 wrote...

Given the sheer level of dogma the Chantry throw out, who knows what Andraste herself really said?

Legacy (DLC) showed that the Chantry is spouting the truth about its most debated aspect: Magisters did try to steal godly power form the Golden City and they ended up as darkspawns. Andraste was the one to make that claim according to the lore (the Maker told her, I suspect that part is debatable though).

The main issue with the Chant of Light is that people (in-lore) cherry pick certain lines. You see the "magic is to server man" everywhere, but I'm yet to see somebody bring the "Those who bring harm, Without provocation to the least of His children, Are hated and accursed by the Maker. " in game...